See, the thing that befuddles me about this entire debacle is that they're hoping to eventually have the Presidency be a Republican.

All they're doing now is just setting the groundwork for whoever is in opposition to use the same tools against them. It's not like there's any specific "You must be a Republican to use these clauses" additions to law.

"At the end of the day, you're fighting legislation that's already passed," said former South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson, describing the fight to defund the health care law as a lost cause.

wood0366:See, the thing that befuddles me about this entire debacle is that they're hoping to eventually have the Presidency be a Republican.

All they're doing now is just setting the groundwork for whoever is in opposition to use the same tools against them. It's not like there's any specific "You must be a Republican to use these clauses" additions to law.

Well, there's the whole 'you must be willing to destroy the nation' part. Which won't stop them from using it.

wood0366:See, the thing that befuddles me about this entire debacle is that they're hoping to eventually have the Presidency be a Republican.

All they're doing now is just setting the groundwork for whoever is in opposition to use the same tools against them. It's not like there's any specific "You must be a Republican to use these clauses" additions to law.

They know they're not getting the next two or three, and the Rapture's bound to happen somewhere in there so they might as well try to consolidate power where they can.

wood0366:See, the thing that befuddles me about this entire debacle is that they're hoping to eventually have the Presidency be a Republican.

All they're doing now is just setting the groundwork for whoever is in opposition to use the same tools against them. It's not like there's any specific "You must be a Republican to use these clauses" additions to law.

They know that if the Democrats can't do the same because it would piss off their voters and lose them elections, only the Republicans can damage the country for partisan advantage and have their voters cheer them on as they get poorer and poorer.

wood0366:See, the thing that befuddles me about this entire debacle is that they're hoping to eventually have the Presidency be a Republican.

All they're doing now is just setting the groundwork for whoever is in opposition to use the same tools against them. It's not like there's any specific "You must be a Republican to use these clauses" additions to law.

AlgertMan:The Republicans are on the verge of doing more damage to this country than Al-Qeada could ever dream of.

Anarchists, arsonists, kidnappers, jihadists, terrorists, and now they are Al-Qaeda. This is kind of name calling should sound strange to people. People are accepting it. It's a sign that the end game is near.

wood0366:See, the thing that befuddles me about this entire debacle is that they're hoping to eventually have the Presidency be a Republican.

All they're doing now is just setting the groundwork for whoever is in opposition to use the same tools against them. It's not like there's any specific "You must be a Republican to use these clauses" additions to law.

Republicans won't be winning the white house for a very very Long time

incendi:wood0366: See, the thing that befuddles me about this entire debacle is that they're hoping to eventually have the Presidency be a Republican.

All they're doing now is just setting the groundwork for whoever is in opposition to use the same tools against them. It's not like there's any specific "You must be a Republican to use these clauses" additions to law.

They know they're not getting the next two or three, and the Rapture's bound to happen somewhere in there so they might as well try to consolidate power where they can.

Yeah, if you can cause the end of the world before the next election cycle, it does reduce your need to worry about holding on to power.

wood0366:See, the thing that befuddles me about this entire debacle is that they're hoping to eventually have the Presidency be a Republican.

All they're doing now is just setting the groundwork for whoever is in opposition to use the same tools against them. It's not like there's any specific "You must be a Republican to use these clauses" additions to law.

This is the most bizarre thing to me as well, and proof that no one in the GOP really care about anything beyond making it through their next election.

Alphax:wood0366: See, the thing that befuddles me about this entire debacle is that they're hoping to eventually have the Presidency be a Republican.

All they're doing now is just setting the groundwork for whoever is in opposition to use the same tools against them. It's not like there's any specific "You must be a Republican to use these clauses" additions to law.

Well, there's the whole 'you must be willing to destroy the nation' part. Which won't stop them from using it.

Y'know, I think that's how they're protecting these sorts of overt power plays; in order to use this very dangerous bit of legislative trickery, you must sacrifice your morals. It'd be akin to "If you want to repeal a law that is popular and constitutional, you must kill an entire bag of puppies."

A serious attack on the deficit - good.The deficit's already decreasing, and would be decreasing even more rapidly if the Republicans wouldn't insist on throwing the whole goddamn craftsman tool set in the gears every chance they get.

Refiguring sequestration to restore some defense spending and some logic to discretionary spending - also good.Restore some defense spending, but restore logic to discretionary spending - yeah, just go ahead and say you're for restoring defense and cutting entitlements more.

Forcing the president off Mount Olympus - priceless.And here's the real goal. So really, it's a win-win-win, with all wins going to the TP, in a game where the stakes are the welfare of the world economy.

AlgertMan:The Republicans are on the verge of doing more damage to this country than Al-Qeada could ever dream of.

The GDP still had net growth in 2001 and 2002.We are looking at a minimum yearly adjustment of -4% from a default, even if we prioritize bond payments. Krugman thinks it could even cause a mini-death spiral that could result in a -10% hit as tax revenues fall even further, requiring even more cuts.

"Standard estimates of the effects of cuts in government spending take into account the role of the federal government as an automatic stabilizer: the deficit rises as the economy shrinks, mainly because tax receipts go down but also because safety-net spending goes up. Typical estimates are that the federal deficit rises around 40 cents for every dollar decline in GDP:

But if the federal government is up against the debt ceiling, it will have to offset these revenue declines and automatic spending increases with further cuts. So the initial 6 percent decline in GDP would force a further 2.4 percent of GDP in cuts, leading to another round of GDP decline, and so on.

Take these effects into account, and the multiplier effect of an initial decline in government spending should be around 2.5, not 1.5. So we could be looking at a 10 percent decline in GDP, and a 5 point rise in unemployment, even if interest is paid in full."

He almost makes sense towards the end talking about how much of the budget is tied up in SS, Medicare and interest etc, etc... he could have gone all the way and said that it doesn't makes sense to have historically low tax rates on wealthy Americans, who've seen their wealth explode in size since the US decided that supply side economics actually had a relationship to reality.

Instead he just drools over how lovely it would be to take the president down a notch. Very strange. It's almost like he wants to write something meaningful but he knows it won't pay the bills so he has to pen obviously disingenuous and factually incorrect drivel.

Do these people really not see why "negotiation" isn't even relevant here? It's like calling up your credit card company after maxing out the card, demanding that they double your limit, and then complaining that they "won't negotiate" when they say no. And then you refuse to pay the card, go to work, and feed your kids.

CPennypacker:Is anyone else following Niall Ferguson's breakdown on HuffPo? We're in Day 3 now. I think Krugman broke his brain.

More Posts by Niall Ferguson:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/krugtron-the-invincible- p _b_4073956.html">Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/paul-krugman-housing-cri s is_b_4067580.html">Krugtron the Invincible, Part 2http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/paul-krugman-euro_b_4060 7 33.html">Krugtron the Invincible, Part 1http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/why-my-comparing-obama-t o _b_257573.html">Why My Comparing Obama to Felix the Cat Is Not Racist

Trivia Jockey:Do these people really not see why "negotiation" isn't even relevant here? It's like calling up your credit card company after maxing out the card, demanding that they double your limit, and then complaining that they "won't negotiate" when they say no. And then you refuse to pay the card, go to work, and feed your kids.

Mrbogey:Obama won't blink as long as he believes Republicans will be blamed. The damage done by the brinkmanship is a non-consideration for him.

And he will happily do anything he can to make it look worse for Republicans too, no matter whom it hurts in the short term. Which is what politicians, left or right, do. Principle walked out on all sides of government a long time ago.